CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 28 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sBB6E85D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE55E11EC { width:137.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FIFTH SECTION CASE OF MOROZOVA v. UKRAINE (Application no. 24315/24)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 28 May 2025   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Morozova v. Ukraine, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a   Committee composed of:   Diana Sârcu , President ,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Ukraine lodged with the   Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 July 2024. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr Y.M. Pavlyshyn, a lawyer practising in Odesa. 3.     The Ukrainian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 of the Convention 5.     The applicant complained of the ineffective investigation into the death of her daughter without involvement of State agents. She relied on Article 2 of the Convention. 6. The Court notes at the outset that the present case falls to be examined from the perspective of the State’s obligation to conduct an effective investigation under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the   Convention.   The   relevant general principles concerning the effectiveness of the investigation were summarised in Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v.   Turkey [GC] (no.   24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015). In particular, once the investigative obligation is triggered, compliance with the procedural requirement of Article   2 is assessed on the basis of several essential parameters: the adequacy of the investigative measures, the promptness of the   investigation, the involvement of the deceased person’s family, and the   independence of the investigation. These elements are inter ‑ related and each of them, taken separately, does not amount to an end in itself (ibid.,   §   225). 7.     Moreover, this is not an obligation of results to be achieved but of means to be employed. The Court accepts that not every investigation is necessarily successful or comes to a conclusion coinciding with the   claimant’s account of events. However, it should, in principle, be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom , no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II). 8.     Reviewing the facts of the present case in the light of those principles, the Court considers that the investigation was marked by various shortcomings, which had undermined the ability of the investigating authorities to establish the circumstances of the death, and who, if anyone, was responsible. The specific shortcomings are indicated in the appended table. 9.     In the leading cases of Kachurka v.   Ukraine (no. 4737/06, 15   September 2011), Pozhyvotko v.   Ukraine (no. 42752/08, 17   October   2013), and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151/10, 5 November 2015), the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the   investigation failed to meet the criteria of effectiveness. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   2 of the Convention under its procedural limb. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 12.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Basyuk , cited above, §§ 74-80), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 2 of the   Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into death of the   applicant’s daughter; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the   currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a   rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 May 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Sârcu   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 2 of the Convention (ineffective investigation into deaths or life-threatening accidents without involvement of State agents) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Background to the case and domestic proceedings Key issues Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses (in euros) [2] 24315/24 30/07/2024 Yuliya Sergiyivna MOROZOVA 1979   On 22/11/2020 the applicant’s 17-year-old daughter N. died when she was out with her friends. Pre-trial investigation was initiated. Some investigative actions were taken, including examination of the crime scene, autopsy, and questioning of a witness. In the course of the investigation, it was established that the death was caused by poisoning, but no signs of forceful injection of a poisonous substance were found. The proceedings were closed and re-opened a number of times (on 27/12/2020, 26/12/2022, and 13/12/2023). Decisions to close the proceedings were subsequently quashed by the domestic courts for failure to carry out a throughout investigation. The applicant lodged several requests asking to question of witnesses, to perform forensic medical examinations, to search the place of residence of the witnesses, and to carry out covert operations. However, the requests went unanswered. The applicant argued that she had not been properly informed of the decision to terminate the pre-trial investigation on 13/12/2023 and that she only learned of it only after the Government had submitted their observations in the case. She further noted that she had lodged a request seeking cancellation of the above decision, which was allowed by the court on 06/03/2025. Failure to check different versions of events ( Yuriy Slyusar v. Ukraine , no. 39797/05, §§ 86-87, 17 January 2013),   investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency ( Prynda v. Ukraine , no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine , no.   42752/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),   lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities’ ability to establish the circumstances of the case ( Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine , no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v.   Ukraine , no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),   no genuine attempt by the investigating authorities to carry out a thorough investigation ( Lyubov Efimenko v.   Ukraine , no. 75726/01, §§ 76-80, 25 November 2010; Yuriy Slyusar v. Ukraine , no. 39797/05, §§ 84-88, 17 January 2013). 6,000 250   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.